(Also, i honestly do not want to watch 20 minutes of bible meanings...)

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Anyway, Greatest I am, what has the "CC" got to do with the thread topic .

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

It adds nothing. It is a house so to speak and it is the minds inside who do the adding.

It is like us and the web. We can get info from others in it but the web itself does nothing on it's own.

Okay - I think I'm getting there now. The "Collective Consciousness" has no independant existence. Has no sentience in and of itself. It could perhaps be thought of as a library, with each book representing an individual mind. Someone browsing the shelves could gain an understanding of what each mind thought, and could (by processing of "counting titles") come away with a sense of what the prevailing attitudes were on a particular subject. But the library does not have its "own" book, in any sense.

Okay, I'm with you now. I think the problem was when you claimed the CC was "sentient", with the implication (at least for me) that there was somehow something independent there. I believe we are on the same page now.

Possibly though you may need to modify then the language you use to describe it? For example, in this quote that I find interesting:

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?

It means that it can form a consensus and have that consensus become a part of the collectives belief system.

The "it can form a consensus" part implies that it is actively and independently doing something, that the CC somehow is thinking and directing. A more accurate phrasing might be: "the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" - eliminate the personal pronoun, and there is less potential confusion as to whether the collective itself has an independent thought.

So far as ""the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" goes, I could dig that. I only have to go to a public meeting with a few persuasive speakers to see how a thought or a meme can spread through a population.

What you seem to be implying with your sentence there is that when a thought becomes the majority in the CC, it will begin to influence all the minds thinking something different? If that's the case, then I have to ask - how does a minority thought get to become the majority, if the process of collective grouping "seeds" majority thought into the others?

Of course, if all you were saying is that "looking at the CC we can see what the current majority thought is, and take that as 'the' thinking of the world", then fine, I can go with that. Like saying "most books in the library are about cars, so cars are the most popular thing" - makes sense. That there is a structure that can be accessed that can provide something like the results of an ultimate opinion poll…..well, maybe. I'd have a whole raft of questions about how such a thing came to be, though, and what actual purpose it served/serves.

It adds nothing. It is a house so to speak and it is the minds inside who do the adding.

It is like us and the web. We can get info from others in it but the web itself does nothing on it's own.

Okay - I think I'm getting there now. The "Collective Consciousness" has no independant existence. Has no sentience in and of itself. It could perhaps be thought of as a library, with each book representing an individual mind. Someone browsing the shelves could gain an understanding of what each mind thought, and could (by processing of "counting titles") come away with a sense of what the prevailing attitudes were on a particular subject. But the library does not have its "own" book, in any sense.

Okay, I'm with you now. I think the problem was when you claimed the CC was "sentient", with the implication (at least for me) that there was somehow something independent there. I believe we are on the same page now.

Possibly though you may need to modify then the language you use to describe it? For example, in this quote that I find interesting:

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?

It means that it can form a consensus and have that consensus become a part of the collectives belief system.

The "it can form a consensus" part implies that it is actively and independently doing something, that the CC somehow is thinking and directing. A more accurate phrasing might be: "the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" - eliminate the personal pronoun, and there is less potential confusion as to whether the collective itself has an independent thought.

So far as ""the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" goes, I could dig that. I only have to go to a public meeting with a few persuasive speakers to see how a thought or a meme can spread through a population.

What you seem to be implying with your sentence there is that when a thought becomes the majority in the CC, it will begin to influence all the minds thinking something different? If that's the case, then I have to ask - how does a minority thought get to become the majority, if the process of collective grouping "seeds" majority thought into the others?

This is what I gleaned and I could be wrong.

Let us say that Einstein dies and reaches the C C. His thinking becomes available to all and all can and will understand it. Here I assume that all souls or consciousness' can learn all that the whole knows. He does not have to convince anyone as all can see his logic trail and automatically recognize it's soundness. The meme there does what you show above as it spreads through the population.

Quote

Of course, if all you were saying is that "looking at the CC we can see what the current majority thought is, and take that as 'the' thinking of the world", then fine, I can go with that. Like saying "most books in the library are about cars, so cars are the most popular thing" - makes sense. That there is a structure that can be accessed that can provide something like the results of an ultimate opinion poll…..well, maybe. I'd have a whole raft of questions about how such a thing came to be, though, and what actual purpose it served/serves.

Life is tenuous and I don't think a purpose can be given to it. Life lives because that is what life does.

Life will go to every possible niche and will always go to the best possible end for itself. I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

As a suspicious entity, I see that web site as an attempt by some to label atheism a religion. It feels so real it screams bogus. It sets itself up too perfectly. Maybe they are real; maybe you had a real telepathic experience?

I also notice you speak in tongues using remarkable vernacular. Kinda reminds me of an old western where a preacher comes to town and amazes the ordinary citizens with words (scripture) from the bible.

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean? Do you mean that there are thoughts produced by the CC that are not being thought by any of the individuals within it? Or do you mean that the thoughts coming out of the CC are simply echoes of individual thoughts being thought by the individuals within it? If the latter, what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

Anfauglir, GIA is free to correct me, but I think what he means is something akin to a colony organism having a consciousness distinct, yet made up of, the conscious units that make it up.

Let's say hypothetically that our bodies' cells were conscious entities, albeit with a very low level of consciousness. Would that necessarily have anything to do with the consciousness we feel as whole human individuals? Not necessarily.

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy,

In future, please do not use non-standard acronyms.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

I have made an attempt to find out what you mean by this term but gave up. It may be something quite simple, but please appreciate the problem you are causing.

As a suspicious entity, I see that web site as an attempt by some to label atheism a religion. It feels so real it screams bogus. It sets itself up too perfectly. Maybe they are real; maybe you had a real telepathic experience?

I also notice you speak in tongues using remarkable vernacular. Kinda reminds me of an old western where a preacher comes to town and amazes the ordinary citizens with words (scripture) from the bible.

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean? Do you mean that there are thoughts produced by the CC that are not being thought by any of the individuals within it? Or do you mean that the thoughts coming out of the CC are simply echoes of individual thoughts being thought by the individuals within it? If the latter, what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

Anfauglir, GIA is free to correct me, but I think what he means is something akin to a colony organism having a consciousness distinct, yet made up of, the conscious units that make it up.

Let's say hypothetically that our bodies' cells were conscious entities, albeit with a very low level of consciousness. Would that necessarily have anything to do with the consciousness we feel as whole human individuals? Not necessarily.

Not quite. Sticking to the mainframe computer analogy.

The mainframe had no software or consciousness until one of us P Cs reached it and uploaded to it.

It had no consciousness till that point in time. That first P C would have had the whole mainframe to itself until the second soul/P C found it and melded with the first P C without either of them losing their individuality. They do seem to have lost any privacy though. I did not sense that they cared after their initial lose of all privacy and what we might call personal thoughts or space.

I thought CC was "Collective Consciousness." At least that is what I think GIA had defined it as.

I call it a cosmic consciousness but collective works just as well and may even be more accurate thanks to that Sudbury scientist bringing the earths magnetic field into my thinking as the possible location of the C C.

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy,

In future, please do not use non-standard acronyms.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

I have made an attempt to find out what you mean by this term but gave up. It may be something quite simple, but please appreciate the problem you are causing.

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own. Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored. Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself. And once again, I'm lost.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own. Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored. Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself. And once again, I'm lost.

I think what is being said, is that the Collective Consciousness is non sentient. It is sort of the group concensus of all people (and possibly all life) Sort of like being in a room of people all talking about a subject and the collective counsciousness is the rolling concensus in the room.

Only the room is everyone, and the debate is everything that is thought about.

GIA is that close to what you are suggesting?

Now this is where I expand on it tell me if I still have it,

Since we are all psychically linked in some way to the CC, it is like the source of a moral blueprint, it may be how we know when things are wrong and even how we collectively progress. Like when all countries around the world began working on radio at the same time, and Electric power generation at the same time. The CC was perhaps driving the innovation subliminally.

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own. Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored. Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself. And once again, I'm lost.

I think what is being said, is that the Collective Consciousness is non sentient. It is sort of the group concensus of all people (and possibly all life) Sort of like being in a room of people all talking about a subject and the collective counsciousness is the rolling concensus in the room.

Only the room is everyone, and the debate is everything that is thought about.

GIA is that close to what you are suggesting?

That's what I thought he was saying. But just when I thought I'd got it, he was talking about the room, or the debate, becoming unhappy, or bored, or going insane - all of which imply that it is something more than an abstract concensus view.

How can a consensus become unhappy? The consensus can BE that people are unhappy, but only IF most people are unhappy. GIA implied that most people were (let's say) enjoying fish, that the consensus would be "people enjoy fish"....and that that would make the consensus itself unhappy.